Hi,
I had a couple of discussions with other hams when explaining them that I use eQSL, and their answers were quite interesting, sometimes surprising. I can't provide percentage values due to the statistically low number of comments, but the most frequent were:

- I do not have a computer in my shack, I think I don't need one at all.
- I do have a computer but I am not using it for logging but for the web and e-mails only.
- My preference is contesting and awards, and eQSLs are often not accepted for this.
- I have heard that the number of returned eQSLs is much lower than conventional QSLs.
- I am using the ARRL LOTW system only and I do not plan to use two systems in parallel.
- eQSLs are an unfair competition to the amateur radio leagues with their QSL service.
- I am not interested in QSLs at all - I can see from my own log which contacts I had.

This makes it pretty clear that there are lots of more or less good reasons why some do not and will not use the eQSL service, and we will never have a return rate of 100 % for eQSLs. I think we will have to live with that.

As a consequence, it is much harder to work e.g. an eDX 100 award using eQSLs compared to the conventional DXCC with paper QSLs.

Cheers, Herwig

---

DC1YB Herwig Feichtinger

It's too bad many hams feel that way about QSLing in general. As for myself, I use both eQSL and LOTW. And even though I have slightly better results from LOTW, I find eQSL is much easier to use and I enjoy the eQSL eCards which I run in my electronic picture frame. As for comparing eQSL or LOTW to paper QSL cards, I get much better results with the electronic format. I do send paper cards to those that send me one, but the postage and printing (ink jet ink) is getting too expensive for me (retired).
73

---

N1ORK Orest 'Andy' Zajac

The security of using LOTW is ridiculous. Honestly, I like the chance to win an award at my leisure. eQSL does that. If it takes a great while, I just don't care.


Also, the fact that my Ham Radio Deluxe logging program uploads the QSO automatically to eQSL. This is great. Every great once in a while I check my standings. It does drag on. Still the ease is what I prefer over LOTW.

To me ham radio should be fun and easy. That's eQSL, not LOTW.

The other thing that I do is use MAPPER in my logging program (HRD) and it pin points about 80% of contacts like a push pin. If I feel the need to brag (rarely anyone in my shack but me) I can pull up the MAPPER display and it shows most of my contacts all around the globe. I feel most visitors couldn't care less about a DXCC on the wall. Really. That's why I don't. 73

---

KG0YE Jeff Griffin

- I do not have a computer

That's fair commentary. This type of person wouldn't be doing LOTW either. I must admit, it makes me cringe a bit when an amateur says "I think I don't need one"... we're supposed to be experts on technology, to a greater or lesser degree, and shunning the technology always makes me cringe. Nevertheless, if you don't have a computer you won't be eQSLing.

- not using computer for logging

I can't imagine why any single operator who had a computer handy wouldn't use it for logging. Compared to keeping paper logs/log books?? Ugh. I've heard this one, and I generally assume the person just doesn't log. If they don't log, they're definitely not going to eQSL and they probably don't do paper QSL either. That said, I volunteer at VE3JW, and they use paper logs (few computers, lots of operators) but respond to eQSLs, so that sort of goes against my assumption.

Personally, my logs are poor and incomplete until I gained the ability to log via computer.

- eQSLs not accepted

That's a bollocks excuse. They're not accepted because people don't stand up and demand that they be accepted. If people stopped applying for ARRL awards until the ARRL became more reasonable, you'd bet eQSL would start being accepted. All those people who flog LotW should consider this carefully.

- Low returns

Unfair commentary. For rock-bangers who do CW only or CW + phone, that's probably true, although I find it a bit of a challenge to believe that the return rate is worse than paper via bureau. If you venture into digital and SSTV, eQSL seems to have a very good return rate. eQSL has a vastly higher return rate than paper QSLs via the bureau for me. It's similar to the return rate for my direct QSLs... which says more about the pathetic return rate on direct QSL in which I've included an envelope and return postage than it does about the eQSL return rate.

I suspect a lot of CW or CW+phone ops fall into the "I don't have a computer" or "I don't use computer for logging" camps, so return rates are low for those modes as a result.

- I use LOTW

Fair commentary. I only use eQSL because I don't want to be bothered uploading to two spots (and I think the pretend "security" of LotW is wholly unnecessary for the hobby). If you're using LOTW already, why switch? I can understand that. This is a major hurdle for eQSL to overcome, and I don't have any ideas how to approach it, and it relates directly to "eQSL not accepted"

- eQSLs unfair competition

I've heard this one too... it's bollocks. People accepting dicta from ARRL, that's unfair. Hams should be dictating to the ARRL, not the other way around.

- I'm not interested in QSLs

This is an unfortunate attitude, that seems to be a fairly recent invention. For me, the QSL is as fun as the original QSO, so I can't understand this at all, even though I know hams who think this way. Do I have a zillion cards from the USA? Sure do... and I look forward to getting more. Every new little town I see in an address on a card, every county, every country... makes me get out the atlas and explore. That's fun to me.

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan

Regarding "eQSL is Not Accepted"...

You can print the eQSL card. Would that not be
sufficient to submit to ARRL for their awards?

Is it simply the fact that the paper goes through
the mail system that validates it?

I can sit home and make up QSL
cards from Venus with a drawing program,
then photo copy them and send them to QRRL.

I would think that a system like eQSL is much more
prone to being "legit". But I don't think the "validity"
of a contact is the issue. Hams simply don't make up
phoney QSL cards.

I eQSL everyone. If they want a paper card, and ask,
I'll send them one.

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

---

N0EQ Craig Lumpy Lemke

this is something that really I don't understand. You have the logging program, you've bothered to export your monthly log (or whatever) to ADIF. How long does it take to upload it to eqsl? less then one minute. then another minute to sign it with tqsl, and another bunch of seconds to upload it to lotw. There, you've made both worlds happy. ("you" being the generic ham here, not the original poster, I'm not blaming anyone in particular)

another thing that I don't understand are those that put "please no eqsl" in their macros (besides the fact that they are not capable of doing a qso without the macros). You're not on eqsl? ok. My confirmation will be there waiting for you in case you change your mind.

Pf

---

IK5PVX Pierfrancesco Caci

Well, I don't export my log to ADIF, it goes direct to eQSL from Ham Radio Deluxe (or MixW before that). I suspect that is the case for most digital operators. However, in the case of just using a logging program, your assumption that "once you've exported it..." is correct.

Here is why I don't sign with tqsl and upload to LOTW:

1. I do not believe that the security afforded by public key infrastructure is necessary or even reasonable for this hobby. The LotW program is offering an illusion of security - they're pretending they're more secure than eQSL. They're not. The issuing of the certificate by LotW is based on the same strength of validation as eQSL and could be faked in the same way. It's not a matter of the strength of the cryptography... it's the weakness of the process that leads to the cryptography. Signing the log does nothing substantial - sure, it can show if your log was modified in transit... but beyond that, it's really just a username and password system. I suppose it is a particular bugbear of mine because I work in the security industry, but I can't support this kind of excessive security mechanism any more than I could support renting a tank because I need to drive on a dirt road this weekend.

2. I don't like the idea of having to run extra software to process my logs. My logs are already well stored. There's just no requirement to process them more.

3. I send paper cards to all new contacts anyway. Even eQSL is more like a "remote site backup" for my logs. eQSL has the advantage of being somewhat more complete than my paper card sending (if I forget to send paper, an eQSL still goes out!). There's simply no compelling reason to send LotW as well.

So really, it boils down to LotW simply being redundant, and I just can't be bothered using it. In fact, if the shoe was on the other foot, an LotW user can make the redundancy argument in reverse.

The "Please no eQSL" folks are interesting. In my experience, they fall into 3 camps...

The first group are almost exclusively Americans who have a weed up their rear ends about the fact that some eQSL graphics from people in the rest of the world have scantily clad women on them. They want those removed "for the children" (whenever someone says that, they really mean: "because it turns me on"), and when eQSL showed some spine (good for eQSL admin, by the way), they got angry and dropped eQSL. There's even a guy with an anti-eQSL web site explaining this! Fair enough. I have a paper card from GD0TEP, I guess guys who are afraid of a little titillation better not talk to him :)

The second group simply aren't interested because they use LotW or don't care to do electronic QSL. Yes, I see the "no eQSL" in the macro all the time. I've often thought of putting "no LOTW" just to stir the pot, but I can't be bothered :)

The third group doesn't have a computer or internet so they just can't do eQSL.

In any case, all my logs go to eQSL so everyone gets an eQSL, and like you say, if they change their mind, the QSLs will be waiting.

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan

I think I've discovered an interesting reason why lots of eQSL users
aren't returning QSLs or being notified or answering requests for
skeds.

When the eQSL system sends a message the subject is typically -
"Need a Sked with Alaska (Via eQSL.cc)"

The phrase "Via" is dumping a lot of my incoming email,
and a lot of other's incoming email from what I've learned,
because it's a typical spam filter term (short for the
sex enhance drug trade name).

eQSL, if you're listening, consider dropping the "Via"
from the intermember mails.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

---

N0EQ Craig Lumpy Lemke

Guys, tonight I just stumbled upon eQSL.cc upon searching about WIRES II at a webpage in south america. It caught my attention because I have heard about this thing before but never paid attention to. Guess what? I entered my call sign at that web site and immediately placed me here and told me that I had some QSLs!

I registered and found a bunch of QSLs dating from 1993! I can recall the QSOs with the stations listed here. I even have one from last September CW QSO to station in Ukrania. Why I did not know about this? For starters I was not told by the other station that they use this system. I am one of those who sends paper QSLs.

From now on I will ensure that the contacted station accepts eQSLs. I am using HRD to control my radio and log those contacts via its software.

I just need to authenticate my call sign later next week.

I'll be using this system as my preferred method of QSLing from today on.

---

KA3OYW Rafael

Welcome aboard Rafael!
We need more Hams like you. I try to spread the word as best I can, whenever I can. I even joined the Yahoo group ARRL-LOTW and put in a few plugs for eQSL there. Many hams that register here are pleased to find eQSLs waiting for them when they upload their logs.
73
And have fun!
Andy - n1ork

---

N1ORK Orest 'Andy' Zajac